October 27, 2010

Hmm. I'm surprised I even ran across this. It's buried in a comments thread over in a Bloggingheads diavlog — and I'm not one of the "heads" — which I happened to start reading. Somehow my name comes up in a conversation about people who are hard to pin down politically. This commenter, one "Twinswords," insists that my "conservatism is irrefutable":

My take on her has always been this: Due to her sharp analytical mind and her legal training, she knows how to put forward the best possible argument. During the period when she rose to blogging prominence, conservatism as an ideology was deeply discredited and unpopular -- especially in an academic setting, and doubly so in Madison, Wisconsin. She recognized that branding her arguments as "conservative" would only serve to weaken them. Not for legitimate reasons having to do with the merits of what she was saying, but merely because in the 2005-2008 timeframe, conservatism was very unpopular. I suspect this is one factor in her constant lying about being a conservative.

But I'm as much of an Althousaholic as anyone: I read her blog daily for years. I've watched every diavlog she's done on BhTV. I have listened to at least a dozen of her debates on Wisconsin Public Radio. And I have listened to many of her old Audible Althouses.

If I were to judge her exclusively by her early BhTV appearances, it would be easier to be confused about her conservative bias; she worked hard to hide it. But if you look at her whole body of work, you can't escape the conclusion that she's deeply conservative.

@Bob Elsewhere, the same commenter says: "Althouse explained multiple times why she didn't vote for McCain: She wanted a "true" conservative, someone like Rush Limbaugh, and thought a weak conservative like McCain would damage conservatism and the conservative movement."

But somebody else says: "Admittedly I don't follow her all that closely (I read her blog from time to time, more when it's linked by others), but do you know of some specific issues where she's 'extremely right wing'? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that she is pro choice, pro gay marriage, and possessing a few other issue positions that would place her firmly in the 'social liberal' camp. Maybe some tax issues? I placed Althouse in the 'contrarian liberal' camp alongside Mickey Kaus."

The problem so many leftists have is pretty much analogous to the one drop of blood thing racialists of the nineteenth century had. If you come down on the conservative side of an issue, even if you get there in a completely different way than the (nonexistent) mouth-breathing conservative hick would, you are 100 percent conservative.

Wow, Professor, you are such a slick Blogger that all of that happened right under my nose and I never saw it. Either Twinswords needs remedial reading or I need it. His analysis seems to say that your earthy pictures of nature combine with your legal training requiring evidence from the real world in an argument has altered your consciousness. Or maybe you are just far too intelligent for him to comprehend. He clearly likes your writing ability. Maybe that is all you can hope for.

Conservative blogs bore the living fuck out of me. I would not come here if I thought Althouse was conservative. Does she have conservative positions? Yes. She also has liberal ones. She also has some twisted admiration for that kook John Paul Stevens, for Chrissake.

Give it a rest, you leftist loons. Lockstep conformity is banal and never likely to lead to a good result.

Odd, my take is more of as a Goldie Hawn (as a character, not as the person herself) who shows little real knowledge of politics between pictures of dudes in shorts. Kinda like a slightly more self-aware, less extremist Victoria Jackson.

So, for instance, you've got Althouse defending the duo who got us into an elective war, who completely bungled the invasion (letting radioactive material and weapons loose, failing to shut down propaganda outlets, etc. etc. etc.), who apparently thought that all they had to do was get rid of Saddam and everything would fall into place, and who eventually spent $3 trillion. And, Althouse defends them.

Nowadays, Althouse defends and supports the tea party movement, one of the worst things to happen to the U.S. outside of major calamities, wars, and terror attacks. The 'partiers lie and smear constantly; they play dress-up games and act like little kids; they throw tantrums at public meetings like little kids; and, all to ultimately help Armey's funders and the Kochs make more money. I really have seen nothing like it.

Now, since this comment is anti-stupidity, expect partiers to lie and smear about me. They aren't capable of making a valid, logical argument against anything I've ever written about them; all they can do is lie and smear.

I always thought you more of an independent type of person- voting your intelligence versus blind loyalty to some party or ideology.

I actually respect people who vote for a reason versus voting blindly for a party. It demonstrates they actually did some research and critical thinking versus just pure loyalty to antediluvian party politics or foolsish ideology.

Another way to look at it is that Althouse is an entertainer. She's not really moving the U.S. forward, she's just putting on a show. And, like some entertainers, she's having a pernicious impact (for reasons I could mention but won't). Her impact is like those entertainers who in effect encourage kids to smoke pot. Not as bad as those who encourage kids to use heroin or rob liquor stores, but still bad for society.

The 'partiers lie and smear constantly; they play dress-up games and act like little kids; they throw tantrums at public meetings like little kids; and, all to ultimately help Armey's funders and the Kochs make more money. I really have seen nothing like it.

You mean you have not been paying attention to the Democratic Party for the past, oh say, forty years?

LonerWacko...Is a "partier" a Tea Party supporter? Assuming you mean that, the criticisms you make are valid on the surface. So what. Leadership change is their goal. That requires the focus. Neither Obama nor the GOP insiders are going to leave town without a fight. The rest of your less than perfect findings against them can be cleaned up later. You are letting perfection become the enemy of the good. In a fight it is better to act right now on a good plan than to sit around until it is a perfect plan, but by then your enemy has taken the offensive putting your perfect plans off as you only defend yourself. That is a teaching for commanders in a war from George Patton.

It's a compliment isn't it, albeit kind of a scary one, that there are people obsessing over you, trying to figure you out. You befuddle them so they parse every sentence seeking to decipher the hidden meaning.

I started reading your blog mostly for the non-political stuff, which is where I think you do your best writing, so I've missed the Kabbalah aspect to your political commentary.

By the way, in that video, she says, "I've nearly always voted for a Democrat." She's always voted for Democrats in the primaries, and she's voted for every Democratic nominee since McGovern except Carter (one of the two times he was the nominee) and Kerry. You'd need to ask her whether her reasons for voting for Republicans in those elections had more to do with a commitment to "conservatism" or specific defects with the Democratic nominees.

Can anyone seriously say that someone who voted for McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Obama is "deeply conservative"?

Well, I am a long time lurker who has started commenting recently. While Althouse loves baiting liberals far more than she loves baiting conservatives for the same foibles, and while I disagree with her on MANY issues, I have never seen her as a hardcore conservative.

Being a liberal baiter and a conservative apologist...is VERY different from actually being conservative.

Peter V. Bella: are you saying the 'partiers are as bad as the Dems? Or, did you just mean to use the tu quoque fallacy and failed miserably?

traditionalguy: the 'partiers are tools. They're pushing an agenda that hurts them and helps those who are using them. The latter camp includes those with the money (the Kochs, Armey's funders, etc.) and their frontpeople (Armey, AFP, etc.) A great example is Glenn Beck listeners donating to the U.S. Chamber, a group that supports mass/illegal immig., holds seminars promoting outsourcing, and basically has so little loyalty to the U.S. that one GOP Rep. (Sensenbrenner) suggested that they might want to register as a Registered Foreign Agent.

Any time Person A purports to tell you what Person B is "really thinking", that tells you more about Person A than about Person B. It means one or more of the following:

* "Person B thinks this; and since Person B is Good, you should think the same."

* "Person B thinks this; and since Person B is Evil, you should think the opposite."

* "I can't argue with what Person B is saying; so instead, I'll tell you what Person B is thinking, so I can argue with that."

While it's true that Person B's written or spoken record may be dishonest, I assume that all self-appointed mind readers -- Twinswords included -- are liars until proven otherwise. If they can't prove their case with Person B's own words and actions, they can't prove their case.

We very tolerant Conservatives like the "Althouse" blog in spite of AA voting for Obama and KF Kerry. She's witty, interesting, funny, knowledgable, and cute. Her support of the GB Packers can be forgiven.

As a great Democrat President once said, Althouse just tells the truth about events in a tone perfect argument, and the liberals say that she is giving them hell. Yet they can't take their eyes off of her blog.

Conservative isn't quite right. Certainly not on the key litmus issues. I would say that Ann's primary characteristic is contrariness. She's also extremely defensive -- she let's no slight go by, and is constitutionally incapable of admitting to being wrong (good to be a lawyer for that -- there are always loopholes).

The key is to add this together and look at the history. 2005-8 was not just a time when conservativism was unpopular (contrarianism), it was a time when liberals and liberal blogs were ascending, and were, to be frank, brutal to those who disagreed. Ann was contrarian, then defensive after criticism (never let a slight pass by), and in search of a welcoming online community. Not only that, but the conservative blogs, which were in defensive posture, were far more welcoming. They were much nicer to Ann, as she said at the time.

All of this combined caused Ann to drift into the company of conservatives (not to mention Instalanches -- Ann is a huge self promoter). The Tea Party is just more of the same mix of contrarian and going towards whoever is welcoming.

So the result is that Ann hangs out with conservatives, sympathizes with conservatives, defends conservatives. But I really don't think she's conservative.

Actually, I think she's a pretty straight up liberal, politically. The rest is personal -- like this blog.

I can't think of any (non related) commenters here who have experienced Althouse in that many different forums, for that long. I know there are many commenters who have been around here for a very long time, but I don't know if they follow all the other Althouse formats. Maybe some do.

Anyway, after more than two and a half (sporadic) years (which makes me a yute, compared to many) the only thing I can say w/ metaphysical certitude is that Althouse is interesting to read. And, that's the point of it all, isn't it?

And, she doesn't ban tro...er...I mean confrontational/tedious commenters--unlike the other blogs where I've been expelled.

The problem so many leftists have is pretty much analogous to the one drop of blood thing racialists of the nineteenth century had. If you come down on the conservative side of an issue, even if you get there in a completely different way than the (nonexistent) mouth-breathing conservative hick would, you are 100 percent conservative.

This is brilliant. I couldn't have put it better. If you aren't fire-breathing lefty on 100% of the issues, you might as well be Rush Limbaugh to them.

To be fair, Alex, I know a lot of righty purists. A couple guys I know are pretty adamant that Rush Limbaugh isn't really a conservative. If Rush doesn't pass muster as a conservative, what chance do the rest of us have?

I am socially liberal, yet I believe fiscal prudence, efficient and small government. As far as foreign policy is concerned, I believe a nation has to do what it needs to do to defend itself, even though I think the Iraq war was ill advised. Oh, did I also mention I was for gun rights and that it puzzles me why it is a left versus right issue at all?

Yet, it didn't take long for Althouse commentators to quickly label me liberal. So be it. You choose the labels, I shrug them off.

Do y'all ever think that maybe Althouse's primary loyalty is to free speech, party be damned? And the comfort of commenters be damned. Althouse almost never ever deletes comments; I wish she would sometimes. Nothing more boring that watching trolls feed.

Since Kerry was swift-boated, Progressives have been so obviously despairingly disdainful of conservative free speech that I suspect Althouse can't resist responding. YMMV

"Do y'all ever think that maybe Althouse's primary loyalty is to free speech, party be damned?"

We are debating whether Althouse is 'deeply conservative' or not. What does the cause of free speech have to do with it exactly?As for not caring about the 'comfort of her commenters' Im not sure thats true. Most of the comments on her blogs come from conservatives sympathetic to the tea party. Over the last few months, I get the feeling that she has been playing to the gallery.

I was able to get my ex back after I followed the instructions at www.saveabreakup.com I totally recommend this site, saveabreakup.com helped me a lot, all I can say is big THANKS!!! I'm so happy now...

"Liberal" and "socialist" are easy to define - they are not moving targets. Neither is "conservatism", though you would never know it from the lazy and self-righteous shit written all day long by monkey-see lemming liberals.

and self-righteous shit written all day long by monkey-see lemming liberals.

Oh, that's not all liberals, of course - but do include in that definition media writers for the New York Times and knee-jerk, no-discernable spine "journalists" such as Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and their ilk.

Like most thinking people, Ann is a mix of Conservative and Liberal positions; the Liberal stands seem to be mostly in the social area, Conservative in fiscal matters. Also, like a lot of people, she may be getting a bit more Conservative as she, well, watches the seasons pass.

Seven is right, however, about Lefty fanaticism about their orthodoxy. Any deviation and you are a traitor, witness Juan Williams.

In the end, I think Big Althouse Projects is largely a figment of the commenter's imagination. I'm guessing Ann voted for the Hopey-Changey centrist Obama of the primaries, not the redistributionist of the last two weeks of the campaign. She also was very clear McCain failed to make the sale as far as she was concerned,

The fact that Meade is a Tea Partier and she sees some of the points he makes (it's no sin except to the Left that she loves her husband to the point where they can discuss possible disagreements civilly) merely means she's being a good, reasonable wife in being willing to listen. And I don't recall her defending Miss Sarah to the point where she said, "Vote for her, she'd make a great Veep".

If she has the strength of character to say to herself, "I was had", and criticize Obama for it, good for her. It puts her above the delusionists who parrot the party line without reflection or critique.

"If she has the strength of character to say to herself, "I was had", and criticize Obama for it, good for her. It puts her above the delusionists who parrot the party line without reflection or critique."

Agreed, but her criticisms of Obama are rarely in-depth or substantial. What she usually does is reprint his speeches- or put up a video- and make snarky remarks about him. As I've said before, we've got to the point where Andrew Sullivan is a more trenchant critic of the President than Ann.And her sympathy for the tea party has now unfortunately began to cloud her judgement. The recent posts on the Rand paul incident (assuming it was a set up then basically blaming the victim and having hardly a word of criticism for the guy who stomped on the woman's head) is a good example of this.

I have been posting here since, I dunno, 2005 (much to the pain of Althouse readers).

She sensed similar arguments about her even then. This post from April '05 was along the same lines.

Althouse wrote then: "And what are we to think of people who not only disagree with you but stop being your friend after you say you think Mozart is better than gamelan music?"

and

"I'm not deeply troubled by it personally -- even considering what a social liability it is here in Madison. I just don't like polarized politics, also I don't like something so inaccurate -- it tends to then make people think I have other opinions that I don't have."

She's not easily pegged, so to liberals she's an apostate, or -worse- 'she has been one of them! all along'. She's not changed as far as I can tell.

"is a good example that, like most Libtards, your observation skills suck and you don't comprehend what you read."

Ooh nice. Lets see Generalization? Check. Ad hominem attack? Of course. Misrepresentation of the facts? Absolutely.And presumably you are one of those who will later preach that Liberals have no civility and don't tolerate dissenting opinions.

From a trial lawyers perspective, Althouse is like a fair judge who seldom steps in but lets the two opposing lawyers argue whatever wild theory of the case they hope the jury will believe. The rare occasion when she steps in is when the evidence is irrelevant and hearsay (like liberal talking points usually are).Usually she gives a reasoned charge to the jury and includes possible verdict forms. It is her cruel neutrality that galls the liberals who insist that juries only be allowed to hear their assertions...and NEVER hear opposing arguments. Also she will jump all over counsel who show contempt for the Judge. Thank you your Honor.

"It is her cruel neutrality that galls the liberals who insist that juries only be allowed to hear their assertions...and NEVER hear opposing arguments."

I don't understand where that is coming from. If mere criticism of liberals was the problem, they would have deserted the likes of Jon Stewart in droves. The intolerant liberal' meme has no basis in reality.If she seemed genuinely neutral or at least attacked both sides it wouldnt be a problem for me (And I think many other liberals) I have no desire to merely read things I agree with. But Im amazed how anyone can read her posts from the last few months and come to your conclusion. Her hilarious over-the-top outrage about O'Donnel getting booed, her constant protectiveness of Sarah Palin (and the tea party in general) and her recent Rand Paul posts all indicate that she's leaning one way.

Seven Machos said... "If you come down on the conservative side of an issue, even if you get there in a completely different way than the (nonexistent) mouth-breathing conservative hick would, you are 100 percent conservative."

good point seven.

no one is actually 100% dumb or without a shred of common sense - try as some might.

I do believe that Ann has veered a bit to the right in her comments and that the "red meat" tossed to the majority of her readership now comes to them partially chewed but that is for her and for them to swallow.

All I know that the game is plentiful and the hunting has never been better or easier from the left's point of view.

You're so much more interesting and surprising as a blogger because you're not lockstep left or right. As a result your commenters are also diverse compared with most blogs I read. I'd say you're conservative with respect to the typical Law professor but a moderate with respect to the US population. The difficulty in placing you is really a reflection on the inadequacy of a single left right metric to define politics.

Her hilarious over-the-top outrage about O'Donnel getting booed, her constant protectiveness of Sarah Palin (and the tea party in general) and her recent Rand Paul posts all indicate that she's leaning one way.

Well, I can only offer an analogy.

I was more than a little upset about the financial profligacy of the Bush administration. And, I thought that the bailouts were an atrocity.

But, the vicious attacks on Bush by the left were disgusting and I hated them. The assassination fantasies, the stupid agitprop, the charges that he is a war criminal...

Likewise, the attacks on Palin are pathological and offensive.

I'm not looking to any politician for salvation.

But, the viciousness of the left has become very disturbing. And the left's fucking idiot habit of accusing anybody who disagrees with them of being stupid... it's about time for people to respond with a punch in the nose to that shit.

Ann, you disavowed your Obama vote very quickly,too quickly. It appears you did not want to stick around and see if it might work. I know you point to that vote and so do all your commenters, but I have seen very, very little support for what he has done in office. Maybe that's why some people think you have "conservative projects". I think you play to your audience here, and they come for the liberal bashing.That's why I'm here. [I go other places to read things with which I agree.] You have been utterly reliable in picking up the rightwing outrage de jour.And I do mean de jour, everyday you pick up the ball and run with the latest...ODonnell, Williams, Tea Party is not racist, Tea Party is not stupid,Michelle O is not beautiful, Rush was right, all media are liberal, yadda yadda yadda.You can smother that with fancy descriptions, nuance, cruel neutrality, contrarian whatever, but your fans are here for the liberal take down and you know that.

My two cents : With Bush, it seemed like Althouse was not enamored of many of his policies, but found a couple she could support and did so vocally. With Obama, she is not enamored of many of his policies, but has not found any that she likes and supports vocally, but rather harps on the disappointments.

But you'll notice I don't link to any Althouse posts in my analysis. It's just my vague interpretation of how I recall the ebb and flow of althouse comments -- which are very few -- and topics that she chooses to put on the front page of her blog.

So, she's a feminist because that quota system delivers the goods for her. Her feminism has softened because she's married now, and her self-interest includes the self-interest of a man.

She's developed an estate, so taxation as confiscation no longer appeals to her. Thus, her views on government have shifted because she wants the government to take its hand out of her pocket.

I understand that her son is gay, so the gay marriage thing also appeals to her self-interest. Why this is so, I don't know, because I also have a homosexual daughter, and that has not led me to embrace the gay activist agenda. In fact, I have a number of gay friends who are actively hostile to the gay activist agenda.

The only bitch I have against Ann's politics is that she is hostile to my self-interest. That's her feminism. She's in favor of a quota system that delivers the goods to her and punishes me. She thinks there is some justification for this, although in fact she grew up in better circumstances than I did.

Minzo...Add in Althouse's insistence that women be treated like they are people too, and re-analyze your last comment. The over the top attacks on O'Donnell and on Palin for being intelligent and popular personalities was a part of the Judge's role to step in when irrelevant evidence is offered. She does the same for Hillary. That seems like taking sides only because the Dems are stuck with a Black Man candidate that only beats White Men candidates , but find that White Women candidates beat their guy. Curses, foiled again. But Althouse did not set up this rock/paper/scissors situation liberals find themselves stuck in.

So, now that I've identified Ann's politics correctly as the politics of self-interest, let me say that that does, in fact, make her a conservative.

Once you acknowledge that you embrace the politics of self-interest, you do become a conservative, because you are assessing issues on a case by case basis as they affect you and your family.

The liberal ruse is that politics should be defined by abstract notions of societal good and progress. This is, in fact, a trick... a way of concealing that liberal's are actually pursuing their own self-interesting, while they pretend otherwise.

Thus, liberals now believe that opposing quotas is racism and sexism. Why? Because quotas advance the self interest of liberals.

Her hilarious over-the-top outrage about O'Donnel getting booed, her constant protectiveness of Sarah Palin (and the tea party in general) and her recent Rand Paul posts all indicate that she's leaning one way.

I think the Sarah Palin/Christine O’Donnell comments have more to do with feminism than conservatism.

"But, the viciousness of the left has become very disturbing. And the left's fucking idiot habit of accusing anybody who disagrees with them of being stupid... it's about time for people to respond with a punch in the nose to that shit."

But what makes you think the left's viciousness is any worse or more prevalent than those of the right? It is pretty hard to quantify that without letting prejudice and confirmation bias take control (And that applies to me as well as you)

"I think the Sarah Palin/Christine O’Donnell comments have more to do with feminism than conservatism."

Fair point.

"Thus, liberals now believe that opposing quotas is racism and sexism."

I think you'll find liberals are in no way united on this subject.

"Minzo...Add in Althouse's insistence that women be treated like they are people too, and re-analyze your last comment. The over the top attacks on O'Donnell and on Palin for being intelligent and popular personalities.."

You think the only reason Palin and O'Donnel were attacked is because they were smart? Sure you can't think of anything else? I agree that there were a few sexist remarks directed at them (just as with most high-profile female politicians) but the idea that its their intelligence that turns people against them is absurd.

"Seven Machos said... The problem so many leftists have is pretty much analogous to the one drop of blood thing racialists of the nineteenth century had. If you come down on the conservative side of an issue, even if you get there in a completely different way than the (nonexistent) mouth-breathing conservative hick would, you are 100 percent conservative."____________

I think this is not quite right. People who push this conclusion tend to base it solely on who disagrees with their preferences, while ignoring the critics preferred positions. Because they tend to focus on subjects defending the hard left or attacking the right it is natural for moderate liberals or centrists to disagree with most of their public statements. Many exacerbate this analytical weakness by believing they are moderate themselves.

I further think the long supported principle of "no enemies to the left" encourages this error. The hard left is simply not used to being questioned by anyone who isn't a conservative. The left's dominance of their own (academia) and public institutions means many do not have a realistic view of the political spectrum. So those on the moderate left or center who criticize the left seem to be widely misidentified on a regular basis. The same is true of people who generally agree left but think their positions are strong enough they don't need to rest on lies or malicious attacks.

McArdle immediately jumps to mind as another person who supports moderate left policies, but her unwillingness to agree with the hard left's assertions (ObamaCare will decrease total health spending while not sacrificing quality or innovation) routinely gets her branded as "on the right" even though her policy preferences are clearly left of center.

It's likely this effect occurs on the right as well. My observation that this occurs on the left could be a function of what I read. I wonder when I read criticisms of David Frum for example, but I don't read him close enough to know whether this description would be accurate and if so to the same degree.

"You think the only reason Palin and O'Donnel were attacked is because they were smart?"

Nobody gets attacked for being smart. It's their views, of course. So why the over the top misogyny? They are not the most conservative opinions out there - not even the most conservative women. What is different about them?

For his 200 episode, the producers of "This Old House" gave Bob Villa a full tool box of all of the usual items such as hammers, screw drivers and wrenchs. The only thing was that they were all gold plated.

The only bigger set of pretentious tools can be found in the comment section of Boringheads.

Minzo, no problem, we can agree to disagree, although I think you're wrong about Leftist civility. Anyone who's had the comment boards of Puffington or Kos inflicted on them sees a level of fanaticism you don't see in the Conservative blogs (I'm thinking not only here but Little Green Footballs (before it got weird), Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, Ace).

Hagar said...

Althouse is a conservative because she is not a Kossack nor a RINO.

Because she's not a Kossack doesn't exclude her from being a Liberal, and certainly doesn't make her Bill Buckley's daughter.

....but the idea that its their intelligence that turns people against them is absurd.

Well I have never heard a single person who dislikes Palin actually describe a policy issue they have, just that she's stooopid! I mean if her level of intellect is the measuring stick then to have any shred of consistency it should be applied to Joe Plagirsit Biden, the guy who thinks FDR was on TV or Obama who thinks Austrian is a language or...well I think you get my drift.

I can easily back up my dislike of Obama by succinctly laying out my policy differences. It would be nice if liberals had the maturity to do the same.

Minzo...I stick with my opinion that it is intelligence that turns liberals and some libertarians against O'Donnell and Palin. You want to see genius IQ levels or else; but Social Intelligence is a huge factor in communicating effectively and governing in today's information age on U-tube steroids.

Genius is great for inventing the lightbulb, flight or time travel but when it comes to effective governing, give me someone with an average GPA, common sense that knows how to balance a checkbook. The 'smartest people in the world' have been pulling the levers of power for some time now and a fat lot of good its done.

The root cause is that the professor is contrarian, I agree. The problem is that -- whatever her own political leanings may be -- the professor is highly critical/skeptical of everyone and everything to the left of Colin Powell, while virtually everything to the right of the General gets a free pass from her.

Plus she can listen to Rush Limbaugh without gagging. For the majority of non-conservatives, listening to Rush is as pleasurable as undergoing the bastinado.

Once you acknowledge that you embrace the politics of self-interest, you do become a conservative, because you are assessing issues on a case by case basis as they affect you and your family.

The vast majority of conservatives embrace the politics of someone else's self-interest -- that of the 97th percentile of income and/or wealth in this country.

"but Social Intelligence is a huge factor in communicating effectively"

I think we were talking about different types of intelligence then. I certainly wouldn't argue that Palin doesn't have high levels of social intelligence. I'm not sure quite how much we should be prioritizing that though.

"Well I have never heard a single person who dislikes Palin actually describe a policy issue they have, just that she's stooopid!"

Well candidates intellect-or lack of it- is obviously a vital factor for politicians and Palin came across as, shall we say, ill-informed in her interviews. Much the same way that many conservatives saw Obama as an 'empty suit' who could only read from a teleprompter but was otherwise dumb and offering only talking points.

"I mean if her level of intellect is the measuring stick then to have any shred of consistency it should be applied to Joe Plagirsit Biden"

I don't think you need me to tell you both sides are guilty of hypocrisy. We exaggerate and relentlessly focus on a candidate's stupidity if they are on the other side but don't pick up on it or rationalize it if the candidate is on our side. Biden's gaffes would probably not be such a big deal if he was a republican.

"Biden's gaffes would probably not be such a big deal if he was a republican. "

They certainly would be to the liberals if he was GOP.

Palin's, and O'Donnel's missteps we're pretty widely panned on the right by many, yet many still like them over their opponents. Biden, who's gaffs are endless and almost daily, are rarely mentioned on the left.

Palin or O'Donnel makes one and it's news for two days. Neither lady is an elected official and Joe is the Vice-President. Seems a little slanted to me.

Biden's gaffes would probably not be such a big deal if he was a republican.

Reagan made enough gaffes, misstatements, and outright falsehoods to fill a book Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error. He still got reelected.

GW Bush's gaffes can be split up into headscratchers, truisms, and spoonerisms. He got reelected, too.

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"- January 11, 2000

"And there's no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail."- October 4, 2001

"[Waves hello]" to blind musician Stevie Wonder

"If this was a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."- December 18, 2002

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."

"And so, in my State of the- State of the Union- or state- my speech--- whatever you want to call it, I asked Americans to give 4,000 years--- 4,000 years over the next--- the rest of your life- of service to America."- April 9, 2002

"The thing that's most important for me is to remember what's the most important thing."- February 20, 2001

"The reason I believe in a large tax cut is because it's what I believe."- Dec. 18, 2000

"Teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."- Feb. 21, 2001

"If the terriers and bariffs are town down, the economy will grow."- January 7, 2000

Minzo - your focus is admirable as well. Whenever anyone criticizes a Democrat or points out their flaws and evils, you shift it back to conservatives. I have to admire such insane dedication. Alinsky would be proud.

So if I glean actual policy issues from that list I can assume you dislike Palin because she supports more domestic oil exploration and drilling, chose to give birth to her children rather than abort them, and supports the troops rather than not. The other items aren't policy issues.

the guy they knew was so very much smarter than Bush turned out to have failed so very very badly.

We'll get Bin Laden someday. Meanwhile the economy is back from the precipice, no one will lack health care, we've turned Iraq over to the Iraqis, we've unwound Bush's extra-legal detention and prosecution of alleged terrorists, etc. etc.

Are you saying your bosses flip you bigger tips when they get to keep more of their income? Because we're talking about their personal wealth and income, not corporate profits.

Conservatives tend to believe that individuals spending their earnings is better for the economy than the government confiscating more of it.

As for corporate profits, yes, typically higher profit earnings result in, dare I say, trickle down in terms of higher merit raises and bonuses or profit sharing. If profits decrease as a result of economic downturn or increased taxes, that tends to reflect in decreased merit raises/bonuses. At least that's how I have seen it practiced in reality. On Planet X it may be different.

For Democrats, it must be galling to discover that the guy they knew was so very much smarter than Bush turned out to have failed so very very badly.

Given the hand he was dealt, I think he's succeeded incredibly. Avoiding a full on economic collapse, health care, education policy, some progress on financial reform, the stimulus. I'm also disappointed about some stuff -- escalating in Afghanistan most of all. All told, given how thoroughly George Bush destroyed our balance sheet, economic foundations, military capacity and global reputation, I think Obama's done extremely well. And very close to half of America agrees with me (FAR more, incidentally, than the support for Democrats, Republicans, Congress, or the truly hated Sarah Palin).

"Meanwhile the economy is back from the precipice,"As 60 Minutes(!) reported last week, the real US unemployment rate is 17%, and in California it's 22%.So, yeah, the Democrats did a great job. Fabulous.

"no one will lack health care,"That explains the deep love the elderly have for Obamacare.

Avoiding a full on economic collapse, health care, education policy, some progress on financial reform, the stimulus.

You've just enumerated the failures of the Obama administration that will lead to a Republican rout next week.

The economic collapse was a bi-partisan affair, created by several successive administrations that (1) put a gun to the heads of banks and forced lending to un-creditworthy borrowers, and (2) indemnified banks against the losses those policies would cause.

Not surprisingly, this led to massive corruption.

This is not a defense of Bush, who favored the subprime lending and the indemnification of lenders. Obama was also in favor of the subprime lending and indemnification of lenders. In fact, his career of working with ACORN was premised on this.

Well I for one am heartened that man made disasters haven't prevented forward civilizational progress. I'm sure at some point in human history after the discovery of fire some moronic fool burnt down whole swaths of forest while grilling his mastodon dinner but they recovered and we moved on.

Russell Kirk wrote "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot." He helped establish "The National Review" and founded "Modern Age." His writings are distributed by the Heritage Foundation and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Kirk voted for Norman Thomas in '44, Barry Goldwater in '64, Eugene McCarthy in '76, and Ronald Reagan in '80 and '84. He also said that it's not part of the conservative cause to sell the national forests for private development.

Being conservative is not an "ism" but a way viewing the world and seeking justice.

This is perhaps the one interesting question in this thread. I don't think it necessarily is, but it certainly seems to have become so. I would suppose that there are several driving forces, almost all of them reactionary:

1. A reaction to over-the-top political correctness and nanny-statism, almost all of them championed by "liberal" social engineers. Contrariness is an effective tactic to counter social engineering, in general.

2. A reaction to appeals to authority, esp. the authority of "experts" and "scientists" that occurs largely on the liberal side.

3. Not as reactionary, an affirmation of the primacy of the individual's rights, contra the convenience of "society." C.f.:

"You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, 'Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?' I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?"

Minzo...Since we are really talking of a war time leader's intelligence, I will quote Patton to you, "never take counsel of your fears...or yor fears will make the decisions for you". Everyone needs to let go of fears of slander for supporting a stupid outback woman. That IS Rove's trick. He does not care anything about winning the 2012 election since his plans are to lose it. Rove is focusing like a lazer on keeping the GOP nomination from Palin, much like King Leonidas did with 300 men at the Hotgates. The battle at the GOP Hotgates guarding the nomination is over the insider GOP movers and shakers that Rove is working everyday trying to make them feel ashamed of supporting a stupid outback woman. So think for yourself, Minzo. The trial lawyer wins or loses a case in the opening statement, because of the power of suggestion by the first story told and believed. That idea planted in the jurior's minds seldom allows them to see the contradictory facts put into evidence later on...we call that mind control. Watch Rove in action quickly planting Palin shame stories as fast as he planted those 3 lies to shame supporters of O'Donnell within 45 seconds after she was declared winner over Casttle. Use your own mind and refuse it to Rove, the Bush family's Consiglieri.

I'm trying. I'm trying so hard to wrap my liberal brain around it, despite making so many classic liberal mistakes. I don't know if I can do it. It just seems like you're saying that her policy is to have no policy -- which makes disagreement on policy grounds so tough. It's so Zen! Maybe I didn't take enough philosophy in college.

I guess that falls under the category of one man's slogan is another man's wonk.

Then again when one holds the belief that Obama has been incredibly successful with his policies while his party is facing a voter backlash of galactic proportions I suppose it is possible to construct your own personal reality.

BP didn't want to drill at such incredible depths. It's original precis for drilling was close to shore and shallow.

Yes, what rational oil producer would want to drill where there were 2 Billion gallons of oil (House testimony of BP CEO Tony Hayward)?

And it's even funnier that Muammar Qaddafi's Libya would have the same environmental policy as the Obama administration.

The real question is how the Right can uncritically repeat this happy horse manure. Oil companies drill where the oil is.

BP to start Libya deepwater oil drilling soon

Oil drillers, users say world needs deepwater wellsTue, Jun 22 2010

* To drill first well in next few weeks

* BP says has undertaken extensive and rigorous preparations

* Libya's NOC chairman happy for drilling to go ahead

By Alex Lawler

LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) - BP Plc, striving to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, is soon to start deepwater drilling offshore Libya, where authorities say they are happy for the company to go ahead.

The well, in the Gulf of Sirte in the Mediterranean, is the first to be drilled under a $900 million deal BP signed with Libya in 2007, which it described at the time as its largest single exploration commitment.

"We're planning our first drilling there fairly soon. It's in the next few weeks and we've got a five-well commitment and we plan to drill two wells back to back," said BP spokesman David Nicholas on Thursday.

"The first one is planned to be in something like 5,700 feet of water."

...The water depth of the Libyan well is deeper than the approximately 5,000 feet beneath which Transocean Ltd's rig Deepwater Horizon, licensed to BP, was drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig exploded and sank, triggering the spill.

Then again when one holds the belief that Obama has been incredibly successful with his policies while his party is facing a voter backlash of galactic proportions I suppose it is possible to construct your own personal reality.

I'm trying so hard!!! But it seems to me you're constructing a narrative to fit your perspective, that what one or two facts it considers are cherry picked, and that you are ignoring or are ignorant about a huge amount.

Give that man a kewpie doll. Yes Daniel you have hit it on the noggin. Its the E C O N O M Y, not health care reform, not financial regulation reform, not cap and trade, not education reform, not DADT.

But that's not what Obama was focused on. He spent the better part of a year and a half of his administration pushing through a piece of legislation that a majority of the electorate was openly hostile toward while unemployment went up and up. He should have focused on that three letter word J O B S that Biden was talking about and then he could have had all the political capital he needed for his socialization of America.

Instead he's probably going to lose the House and a slim possibility of the Senate. Good job there Mr. President. You're a real wonk.

Yes, BP certainly issued fluff PR statements about deep water drilling after the fed forced it to drill in deep water.

Let me break this down for you:

1. BP2. Signed a contract 3. with the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Qadaffi4. in 2007, years before Obama became President5. to drill off shore in deeper water than they did in the Gulf of Mexico6. which st said they did only because US environmental regulations forced them to.

Which is therefore horseshit,

7. Because Libya is outside the ambit of US environmental regulations, and

1. BP 2. Signed a contract 3. with the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Qadaffi4. in 2007, years before Obama became President5. to drill off shore in deeper water than they did in the Gulf of Mexico6. which st said they did only because US environmental regulations forced them to.

Which is therefore horseshit,

7. Because Libya is outside the ambit of US environmental regulations, and

8. Oil companies drill where the oil is.

You've tried once again to make the normal course of business seem sinister.

BP's original plan was to drill in shallow water close to shore. The Fed denied their permit to do this. The oil is equally accessible in either location.

So, you agree with me completely, but you find something sinister in BP's actions.

Also no serious hurricanes, terror attacks or zombie outbreaks. And don't forget that Obama did stop the seas from rising - promised and delivered. So there.

It is true that no hurricane has made landfall in the USA since Obama was elected. I think, if McCain were President, that Hurricane Earl this year would have slammed head on into the Outer Banks of NC, instead of heading out to sea at the last moment because of Barack Hussein Obama!

Also...your choices in the 12.20 post are false choices. You either need a 'none of the above' or you need to enumerate all possible outcomes for it to be a valid choice exercise.

So...maybe something like

You're mortally sick. What would you have the doctor do?

1) Operate on you, knowing that could kill you or cure you completely

2) Not do anything, knowing that sometimes your condition can heal itself.

3) Perform an experimental surgery, unproved, promising, but highest chance of risk as well as return.

Amazingly enough, those are all different points on a classic risk-return chart. The framework is the model (a financial asset pricing model would be a good example). Whether you choose to go towards a higher risk profile or lower risk profile depends on your your investment horizon and what your return expectations are.

So many debates here are so interesting because they are personal preferences on the sliding scale of the same sociological model.